I was recently interviewed by Le Monde for a series on the impact of Hiroshima on science and science policy, with a particular focus on biotechnology, synthetic biology, and biosecurity. Here is the story in French. Since the translation via Google is a bit cumbersome to read, below is the English original.

Question 1

On the 16 of July 1945, after the first nuclear test at
large scale in New Mexico (called trinity) the American physicist Kenneth
Bainbridge, head of the shooting, told Robert Oppenheimer, head of the
Manhattan Project, "Now we are all sons of bitches ".

In your discipline, do you feel that the time the searchers
might have the same revelation has been reached ? Will it be soon?

I think this analogy does not apply
to biotechnology. It is crucially important to distinguish between weapons
developed in a time of war and the pursuit of science and technology in a time
of peace. Over the last thirty years, biotechnology has emerged as a globally
important technology because it is useful and beneficial.

The development and maintenance of
biological weapons is internationally outlawed, and has been for decades. The Trinity
test, and more broadly the Manhattan Project, was a response to what the
military and political leaders of the time considered an existential threat.
These were actions taken in a time of world war. The scientists and engineers
who developed the U.S. bombs were almost to a person ambivalent about their
roles – most saw the downsides, yet were also convinced of their responsibility
to fight against the Axis Powers. Developing nuclear weapons was seen as
imperative for survival.

The scale of the Manhattan Project
(both in personnel and as a fraction of GDP) was unprecedented, and remains so.
In contrast to the exclusive governmental domain of nuclear weapons,
biotechnology has been commercially developed largely with private funds. The
resulting products – whether new drugs, new crop traits, or new materials –
have clear beneficial value to our society.

Question 2

Do you have this feeling in other disciplines? Which
ones ? Why?

No. There is nothing in our
experience like the Manhattan Project and nuclear weapons. It is easy to point
to the participants’ regrets, and to the long aftereffects of dropping the
bomb, as a way to generate debate about, and fear of, new technologies. The
latest bugaboos are artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. But
neither of these technologies – even if they can be said to qualify as mature
technologies – is even remotely as impactful as nuclear weapons.

Question 3

What could be the impact of a "Hiroshima" in your
discipline?

In biosecurity circles, you often
hear discussion of what would happen if there were “an event”. It is often not
clear what that event might be, but it is presumed to be bad. The putative event
could be natural or it could be artificial. Perhaps the event might kill many
people as Hiroshima. (Though that would be hard, as even the most deadly
organisms around today cannot wipe out populated cities in an instant.) Perhaps
the event would be the intentional use of a biological weapon, and perhaps that
weapon would be genetically modified in some way to enhance its capabilities.
This would obviously be horrible. The impact would depend on where the weapon
came from, and who used it. Was it the result of an ongoing state program? Was
it a sample deployed, or stolen, from discontinued program? Or was it built and
used by a terrorist group? A state can be held accountable by many means, but
we are finding it challenging to hold non-state groups to account. If the
organism is genetically modified, it is possible that there will be pushback
against the technology. But biotechnology is producing huge benefits today, and
restrictions motivated by the response to an event would reduce those benefits.
It is also very possible that biotechnology will be the primary means to
provide remedies to bioweapons (probably vaccines or drugs), in which case an
event might wind up pushing the technology even faster.

Question 4

After 1945, physicists, including Einstein, have committed
an ethical reflection on their own work. has your discipline done the
same ? is it doing the same today ?

Ethical reflection has been built
into biotechnology from its origins. The early participants met at Asilomar to
discuss the implications of their work. Today, students involved in the
International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition are required
to complete a “policy and practices” (also referred to as “ethical, legal, and
social implications” (ELSI)) examination of their project. This isn’t window
dressing, by any means. Everyone takes it seriously.

Question 5

Do you think it would be necessary to rase the public
awarereness about the issues related to your work?

Well, I’ve been writing and
speaking about this issue for 15 years, trying to raise awareness of
biotechnology and where it is headed. My book, “Biology is Technology”, was
specifically aimed at encouraging public discussion. But we definitely need to
work harder to understand the scope and impact of biotechnology on our lives. No
government measures very well the size of the biotechnology industry – either
in terms of revenues or in terms of benefits – so very few people understand how
economically pervasive it is already.

Question 6

What is, according to you, the degree of liberty of
scientists face to political and industrial powers that will exploit the
results of the scientific works?

Scientists face the same
expectation of personal responsibility as every other member of the societies
to which they belong. That’s pretty simple. And most scientists are motivated
by ideals of truth, the pursuit of knowledge, and improving the human condition.
That is one reason why most scientists publish their results for others to
learn from. But it is less clear how to control scientific results after they
are published. I would turn your question in another direction, and say politicians
and industrialists should be responsible for how they use science, rather than
putting this all on scientists. If you want to take this back to the bomb, the
Manhattan Project was a massive military operation in a time of war,
implemented by both government and the private sector. It relied on science, to
be sure, but it was very much a political and industrial activity – you cannot
divorce these two sides of the Project.

Question 7

Do you think about accurate measures [?] to prevent further
Hiroshima?

I constantly think about how to
prevent bad things from happening. We have to pay attention to how new
technologies are developed and used. That is true of all technologies. For my
part, I work domestically and internationally to make sure policy makers
understand where biotechnology is headed and what it can do, and also to make
sure it is not misused.

But I think the question is rather
off target. Bombing Hiroshima was a conscious decision made by an elected
leader in a time of war. It was a very specific sort of event in a very specific
context. We are not facing any sort of similar situation. If the intent of the
question is to make an analogy to intentional use of biological weapons, these
are already illegal, and nobody should be developing or storing them under any
circumstances. The current international arms control regime is the way to deal
with it. If the intent is to allude to the prevention of “bad stuff”, then this
is something that every responsible citizen should be doing anyway. All we can
do is pay attention and keep working to ensure that technologies are not used
maliciously.